By CHARLES IWUOHA

The Nigerian government has been accused of being both the terrorist and prosecutor in the case of IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu.

The Mazi Nnamdi Kanu Global Legal Consortium made the claim in a petition addressed to the NBA and IBA by a lawyer, Christopher Chidera.

The lawyer argued that findings made by the Supreme Court, as well as the ruling delivered by a Kenyan court, established that the Nigerian government was both terrorist and prosecutor in the matter.

He expressed regrets that, despite admitting that Nigerian authorities illegally extradited Kanu from Kenya, the Supreme Court contradicted itself by going ahead to order the continuation of the trial, after he was discharged and acquitted by the Court of Appeal.

He said, "My lord Justice Emmanuel Agim (of the Supreme Court) in the same remittal judgment, found that Nigerian agents kidnapped and abducted Kanu and subjected him to extraordinary rendition from Kenya to Nigeria. He described the conduct as “prohibited by law”, “brazen lawlessness” and said the prosecution had become “unfair and oppressive.” And yet the trial continued.”

The lawyer cited provisions of Kenyan and Nigerian laws, as well as the pronouncement made by the Supreme Court in the case, to back the claim that the Nigerian government was both terrorist and prosecutor in the matter.

Chidera noted that the action taken by Nigerian authorities against Kanu in Kenya amounted to kidnapping under Kenyan law.

He said, "Kenya has a Penal Code (Cap 63). It defines kidnapping in plain terms: “Any person who conveys any person beyond the limits of Kenya without the consent of that person … is said to kidnap that person from Kenya.”

“And it prescribes punishment: “Any person who kidnaps any person from Kenya or from lawful guardianship is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for seven years.” Kanu was in Kenya. He was conveyed beyond the limits of Kenya without his consent. That is the statutory definition of kidnapping under Kenyan law.

“The very act the Supreme Court found — kidnapping from Kenya — is a felony in Kenya, punishable by seven years’ imprisonment. A Kenyan court has since confirmed this. The High Court of Kenya declared Kanu’s abduction and forcible removal from Kenya “unlawful and unconstitutional,” holding that there were “no extradition proceedings” and that the “abduction and incommunicado confinement were not lawful acts.”

Citing the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, the lawyer said Nigeria’s own terrorism law defines the Nigerian government’s conduct as terrorism.

“The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 (TPPA) — the living law in Nigeria on 15 December 2023 and today — defines an “act of terrorism” to include: Section 2(3)(f) — an act that violates an international treaty or resolution to which Nigeria is a party.

Section 2(3)(g)(ii) — an act that involves or results in the kidnapping of a person.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is a treaty to which Nigeria is a party. It has been domesticated into Nigerian law. It prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention, and it prohibits the extra-judicial removal of a person from one country to another without due process.

“So by the plain text of Nigeria’s own terrorism law: The State kidnapped Kanu ? Section 2(3)(g)(ii) — an act of terrorism. The State violated the African Charter through extraordinary rendition – Section 2(3)(f) — an act of terrorism.

“The state is a terrorist by its own law. So here is the position: The TPPA 2022 says kidnapping is terrorism. The TPPA 2022 says treaty violation is terrorism. The Supreme Court found that Nigeria kidnapped Kanu. The Supreme Court found that Nigeria violated the African Charter through extraordinary rendition.

The same court then allowed the state to prosecute Kanu for terrorism.

The state cannot be both the terrorist and the prosecutor. The perpetrator of the crime cannot be the accuser. He who goes to equity must go with clean hands,” Chidera added.

He stressed that the December 15, 2023 Supreme Court ruling that ordered the continuation of Nnamdi Kanu’s trial rests on six fundamental legal errors.

According to him, the consequences of those errors reached the trial that followed and the conviction entered by Justice James Omotosho.

The lawyer stressed that, so far, the court and the prosecution have not explained the law that restored some counts in the charge against Kanu, which initially quashed by the Court of Appeal in the judgment that discharged and acquitted the IPOB leader.